Respect and Religion

[kiobe]

There's a lot of arguable/wrong informations under this thread. But i choosed this Şehrazad, don't take it personally.

Jihad is completely different than crusade or holy war. Also Jihad is not equal to war too. Plus the biggest Jihad is the Jihad that you do against yourself. Suicide bombings and terrorism are definetely out of İslam. Also İslam is peaceful, because if anyone wants to live in peace with Muslims; Muslims are not allowed to attack them. Though crusades or holy wars were organized by Roman Church, official representator of Christianity.

Also female circumsion is not something related to İslam too. It's a tradition in Sudan and partly Egypt. In fact it's only in these lands and has no relation with İslam.

Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society". It is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it occupies no official status as such. Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants.
A holy war is a war justified by religious differences.

[Turk]

The Catholic Church is NOT the official representation of Christianity-- that would be Christ. Even at the time of the Crusades there were other major churches-- the Ethiopian Orthodox/Coptic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Most of Europe, including England, France, Germany, Hungary, İtaly, Austria etc. were Catholic back then. Only little East European (even not all of them) were Orthodox, and compared to Catholic church those churches weren't major churches back then. Also i pointed it as the official to point crusades and other church organizations were allowed and accepted by Christians, theologically you may not accept but most of Christians back then were believeing it's official representation of Christianity and Popes are still considered as successors of Jesus and it's believed Pope never make mistake. There's certain difference with this, and Jihads most of western people knows (i even won't call them Jihad) aren't Jihad, first of almost all of Muslims doesn't accepts terror organizations represents İslam.

[weepingforloman]

I know a little about the concept of jihad, and I think it's become far too much of a dirty word. All of Russia and the remains of the Byzantine Empire were orthodox... The doctrine of papal infallibility (which I think is totally stupid) was not even defined then, and is much more limited in scope than people think (most things a pope says are considered fallible). The popes should never have been considered the succesors of Christ (and, actually, they were considered the successors of Peter, who was believed to be Jesus's representation on Earth).

[atiguhya padma]

Didn't you hear about the guy who wanted to remove "under God" from the US pledge of alleigance? Did you hear that the giant Christmas tree they put up annually in Boston was briefly renamed "The Holiday Tree?" Haven't you noticed how all of pop culture consistently depicts any religious devotion as fanatacism and hypocrisy? Look around-- religious people aren't getting any favors done for them (except in campaign season ).

All of pop culture, are you sure? Any religious devotion? I think not. Many of the celebrities of pop culture are themselves into some form of religion.

Me look around? I suggest you look around. And look in the right places. For starters, try the National Secular Society's website, or the New Humanist magazine, they'll show you how religions do get big favours done for them in the UK. From faith schools that are largely funded by the govt in the UK, to tax exemptions for the clergy, to legislation preventing freethinkers from criticising religious thinkers: people who choose to accept the most outrageous notions in the name of personal faith, seem to have the whole apparatus of government and legislation protecting them.

Its about time we stopped force-feeding children nonsense about fear of hell, protection from some fairy-godfather in the sky, the sexist attitudes towards women that religions consistently promote, the homophobia of monotheism etc etc is tantamount to child abuse. Freethinkers, secularists, humanists are already pressurising the church to clean up its act in regards to child abuse, but with constant political protection, its a struggle to free children from the evils of religion.

[weepingforloman]

DO NOT, DO NOT, presume to KNOW whether God is real or not. YOU CAN'T. Yes, people with faith are "protected" to the extent that they are granted the freedom to practice their religion-- if they weren't, atheists would have been killed in previous centuries (and they WERE there-- back to the beginning... In ancient Israel they had a word "apikorsim," which usually referred to a Jew who denied the existence of God).

The apostle Paul says, "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (Col. 3:11). All distinctions are to be erased in Christianity... Sexism has no place in it. Any sexism attached to Christianity is the result of social convention or misinterpretation of scripture.

As to "homophobia," I will not deny that I (and virtually all Christians right of the Catholic Church) consider homosexual behavior a sin (not homosexuality itself-- the act, not the tendency). However, as Christians WE ARE CALLED TO LOVE EVEN OUR ENEMIES. And homosexual people are not our enemies. We may tell them we think what they do is wrong. We may ask them to try to change before they join a church (it has been proven that therapy is at least 50% effective at switching a person's sexual orientation, if they actually want to change), but WE DO NOT HATE THEM.

If you don't think pop culture aligns itself against Christianity specifically, but all of religion generally, I suggest that you listen to the music of people like Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine (both popular bands here in the US, don't know about the UK), watch a few episodes of "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy," and read a few ordinary novels, especially if they include a "religious authority" (they generally have the minister/priest/bishop be a con man).

Peace and Grace.

[Turk]

If you don't think pop culture aligns itself against Christianity specifically, but all of religion generally, I suggest that you listen to the music of people like Pearl Jam and Rage Against the Machine (both popular bands here in the US, don't know about the UK), watch a few episodes of "The Simpsons" or "Family Guy," and read a few ordinary novels, especially if they include a "religious authority" (they generally have the minister/priest/bishop be a con man).

Yes, if someone would try to make fun of Hz.Jesus or Hz.Muhammed here he would certainly get a reaction, a harsh reaction. But in USA they are making fun of Jesus continously. If people of USA aren't showing a reaction against it i would doubt their faith.

Also i would like to point one little detail, did you ever realize they never make fun of Moses in those TV shows or movies, books etc.? Could anyone explain me, why?

[weepingforloman]

I have seen jokes ABOUT Moses, but never jokes AT Moses's expense. I think it might be because Jewish people don't actually worship Moses, or maybe just for no reason at all...

As an American, I'd say there is a general lack of faith in this country.

[atiguhya padma]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

[-Valkyrie-]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

It means he's not so arrogant to assume that he's absolutely correct, especially in a situation like this where there is no proof either way.

[Tuesday]

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

I have to kindly disagree. Belief by nature is not restricted to the realms of superhuman deities. You can believe in anything you want, be it God or astrology or homoeopathy. But maybe is 'believing' the wrong word here anyway. I think 'trust' might be better since it doesn't carry as many religious associations as 'believe' does.

Regarding your theory about fundamentalist atheists: I don't think this term is applicable at all here, at least not in a realistic way. I have no statistical evidence to prove this, but I think that atheists normally do have a belief - they believe in science. Unlike religion based on scripture, science actually evolves and changes over time. If some theory is found not to be plausible, it is put into the trash can and replaced by a theory that explains the observed occurences better. Scripture on the other hand doesn't evolve, it's statical. It doesn't even have to be plausible. It's holy and that's that.

So in my opinion, there is no such thing as a 'fundamental atheist'.

[weepingforloman]

So are you an agnostic then, if you do not presume to know whether God is real or not? Personally, I find agnostics even worse than believers and that's saying something.

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

I'm afraid your missionary is wrong-- only faith can save, and those who are not judged by their denial of the Gospel are judged by their failure to do what they no is right in every situation. The world is hard... things that are true are hard.

Oh, and Christianity screwed up mankind? How about the "Communist" (and atheist) revolutions of Russia and China? That's not screwed up?

How about Hitler-- he essentially forced loyalty to the Nazis to take precedence over all else... so he often "punished" faithful Christians.

How about Mother Theresa? How about Dorothy Day? How about John-Paul II (I'm not Catholic, but he was a good man)? How about William Wilberforce? How about the American Abolitionists?

I'll not deny that great atrocities have been done by those who claim divine support-- but I would argue that one who truly believes in and loves Christ could not, and would not, do the kinds of things you refer to.

Grace and Peace.

[Tuesday]

How about Hitler-- he essentially forced loyalty to the Nazis to take precedence over all else... so he often "punished" faithful Christians.

How about Mother Theresa? How about Dorothy Day? How about John-Paul II (I'm not Catholic, but he was a good man)? How about William Wilberforce? How about the American Abolitionists?

I wouldn't mention Hitler at all if I was in your place. The argument is not only very weak because it's all but clear that he actually was an atheist, it also damages your own cause due to the involvment of the church in the consolidation of possible political influences (not to talk about the lack of involvment on the side of the vatican).

[Redzeppelin]

You seem to assume that atheism is a belief. Its not. Its an absence of belief in a god. If atheism was a belief, then, just as other beliefs have fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist believers, so would atheism. But tell me, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist believe that would separate him or her from other atheists?

This is the same clever word-play that many atheists like to engage in - but it's incorrect and misleading. Certainly you disbelieve in God - but to do so is simply the obverse of the coin that says "I believe that those who believe in God are wrong; and, since I disbelieve in God, then I choose to believe that the answers of existence are to be found in nature, because that is the only thing that exists." All perspectives require a belief of some sort - no perspective can be defined by a lack of belief. Sorry.

You know, I can really see what you mean, about you poor christians. After all, you've only had 1600 odd years to screw up the minds of the western world; to pedal your superstitious primitivism around the globe (did you hear the one about the missionary who explains to the tribal leader that he's come to tell him about the gospel, and that those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven and those that don't will go to hell? The tribal leader asks what happens to those people in far-flung corners of the globe, who are not told this, to which the missionary says that they will be saved by grace. So why did you not leave us alone then? asks the tribal leader); to infect states, institutions, and other religions with your prejudices. Yes its a hard life. But maybe you should complain to your presumed/unpresumed real/unreal god not me. By the way, what can it mean for you to not presume that god is real? I would say that a persons actions reveal their presumptions wouldn't you?

"Screw up the minds of the Western world?" Right. You got anything more substantial than a joke to corroborate that claim?

[Tuesday]

"Screw up the minds of the Western world?" Right. You got anything more substantial than a joke to corroborate that claim?

You cannot possible deny the enormous influence that Christianity had on the occident - on the way that people behaved, lived and, above all, thought. If that influence was for better or worse is a matter of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with the statement, although I would have certainly put it in different words.

On the other hand, it's impossible to say how history might have evolved without the rise of Christianity. Maybe it was the lesser evil indeed.

[Redzeppelin]

You cannot possible deny the enormous influence that Christianity had on the occident - on the way that people behaved, lived and, above all, thought. If that influence was for better or worse is a matter of opinion. I'm inclined to agree with the statement, although I would have certainly put it in different words.

On the other hand, it's impossible to say how history might have evolved without the rise of Christianity. Maybe it was the lesser evil indeed.

I denied nothing. I take issue with the relentless focus of non-believers on the mistakes in Christianity w/o even bothering to look at the other side of the scales in terms of what Christianity gives that is good and positive. To deny this is to show a seriously skewed perspective which clearly does not wish to engage in real discussion but merely to bash instead.